Saturday, September 23, 2006

John is banned at Pandas Thumb and After the Bar Closes (and many other places) but is able to post at ISCID and Uncommon Descent. He often complains of being ignored by Darwinists, but moderation policy at ISCID and UD largely prevents any honest debate.

So I am calling Johns bluff. I guarantee this thread will be free from moderation (subject to "my mother wouldn't like it" rule on obscenity) and look forward to hearing from John in due course if he so wishes.

One point I would like to hear from him on is why he claims that is is the chromosome and not the gene that is the vehicle of inheritance.

Okay you cowardly, ignorant little twerp. You are cordially invited to come back to brainstorms and repeat your comments there. You tell Micah Sparacio that I have said you are welcome there you ignorant half wit. Got that? Write that down. That goes for anyone else that wants to challenge my pronouncements. Put up or shut up.

ISCID are still blocking my registration and no response to my emails to Sparacio. Yet you call me coward. Oh! the irony, John. I'd certainly put up if ISCID and Uncommon Descent weren't still shutting me up.

I just read your tirade against me at ATBC and you directed me here to respond to your cowardly remarks, secure that I couldn't respond do you there. I have been banned. everwhere I have ever been banned, includimg Uncommon Descent, always for exactly the same reasons. The unvarnished pristine truth could not be tolerated by the hosts of Pharyngula, ARN, EvC, Uncommon Descent and God only knows how many other half-assed gossip fests that have done the same, always for the same reason. The only thing that sets this blog apart is that its owner is too stupid to ban be.

Got that? Write that down dummy!

I don't have to defend what I have published in several papers. The place for that is in the hard copy scientific literature not in silly, ephemeral, insignificant little blogs like this one or any other ineternt venue for that matter. You are indescribably ignorant, a coward, and a gutless coward at that.

"Kiss either or both of my two lower cheeks" is on the wrong side of what I could permit my mother to read. Please tone it down, as I would rather engage on substantive points.

John writes:

I just read your tirade against me at ATBC and you directed me here to respond to your cowardly remarks, secure that I couldn't respond do you there.

Have you forgotten I can't respond at Uncommon Descent or ISCID? Where, incidentally, you are adressing remarks to me knowing full well I cannot respond there. Does not that then make you a coward? Sauce for the goose, John...

I don't have to defend what I have published in several papers.

Sure you don't, but then stop dishonestly claiming you are being ignored when it is you that is unwilling or incapable of responding to reasonably expressed and legitimate criticisms of your "PEH".

Well you cowardly little twerp, where are your comments about a published scientist over at ATBC where no one has ever published anything on the mechanism of organic evolution?

How about you chris hyland? When are you going to reproduce any of my devastating antiDarwiniana? Are you both scared to death of the big bad fisheries biologist who also never published a word about the mechanism of organic evolution, not a word? That is how it looks from here.

I first heard of ID less than two years ago, when commenting on a forum intended to assist people learning English (I was actually hoping to contact a few French users for mutual help). I commented on a thread about religious belief and was engaged by an ID supporter (I did wonder why this person was lurking on this site, they never commented before or after).

In the course of a few posts, I was given all the big names in ID, Behe, Dembski, Berlinski (he seems to have taken a back seat, now) and also John Davison. I was directed to his Vermont University web-site to read the papers available there. I formed an initial opinion of his ideas then, but also found anti-ID sites and began to get interested in the debate, especially the build-up to Dover vs Kitzmiller.

I soon came across John posting at Pandas Thumb, just before he was banned. I admit to becoming a bit obsessional about him, especially as he would never respond to a direct query about his papers in any meaningful way. I have observed his fortunes rise and fall at pro-ID websites such as ARN and UD, and at anti-ID sites such as Pharyngula and PT. The content of his posts and the responses generated were similar and the results seemingly inevitable.

I have to confess, I am no nearer now understanding why John behaves as he does in any forum he is permitted to contribute. Certainly, asking John to support his assertions seems to annoy him. So, Carlos, are you saying that it's a waste of time to try?

I am no nearer now understanding why John behaves as he does in any forum he is permitted to contribute. Certainly, asking John to support his assertions seems to annoy him. So, Carlos, are you saying that it's a waste of time to try?

Let me put it this way: I've spent more time than I care to admit trying to engage someone on-line who reminds me very much of John. This other person was something of an autodidact, proud of his or her knowledge, and very well-defended -- in a psychological sense.

This other person wanted the attention and respect of others, and was uninterested in either explaining their position more carefully, in relating their interests to what others were talking about, or in responding to criticisms made by others more knowledgeable and informed than they were.

In fact, when criticized or questioned, this was sure to provoke a storm of "who cares what a bunch of ivory-tower intellectuals think, anyway?"

John does not exhibit all of these symptoms, but he seems perilously close. It seems clear to me that he desperately craves the attention and recognition of others, but at the same time thrives and delights on denigrating them. This is not the profile of someone with whom one can have a reasonable conversation.

No doubt he'll now turn his pathetic wrath towards me now, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I am not in the least interested in gaining the respect of any ideologue anywhere. My interest is in exposing them as the intellectual trash they always prove to be. I relish insultimg mental defectives. At the moment as near as I can tell, I am the only scientist active in internet forums who has ever published anything on the MECHANISM of organic evolution. It is only the MECHANISM that has ever been in question and I have offered a new one in the form of the Prescribed Evolutonary Hypothesis. I recommend you read my several papers published over a 22 year span and direct yout comments to their contents and not to my personality. Until you can demnstrate that you have done that, you do not exist snd neither does Alan Fox or any other denizen of this or any other blog in cyberspace. You are all nothing but a bunch of hens clucking away in gloriously sublime ignorance.

"I have been banned. everwhere I have ever been banned, includimg Uncommon Descent, always for exactly the same reasons."

Yep. You're banned for being rude, obnoxious, foul, insulting, and not having anything worth saying.

That's why you were banned from UDoJ, that's why you were banned from UD, that's why you were banned from PT, that's why you were banned from AtBC.

Kisses to Alan,Raspberries to DAJ

P.S. - Are you ever actually going to get around to trying to post some evidence for your "theory"? Seems like every time you get the opportunity to do so (including on THREE of your own blogs), all you do is cry and whine about how you've been banned all over the place, but never actually get around to trying to support your "theory".

It is interesting to note that one of Davison's handful of heroes, Grasse, documents in the very book that Davison relies upon for quotes that karyotype is basically irrelevant insofar as speciation goes since there are many extant species with alternate intraspecific karyotyes.

This is for the whole stinking bunch of you, not a rational being in the bunch.

Since when does a published scientist have to defend anything in the ephemeral world of the internet? The only place to criicize my work is in the same venue in which it was presented, regereed journals. There isn't one of you half-wits with either the talent or the guts to put a single comment on my work in a refereed paper and you know it. Until that happens you can all kiss either or both of my lower two cheeks.

Did you decide to return to AtBC? I can't imagine there'd be any problem. I have looked in a few times at UDOJ; it's still buzzing."

Hi Alan!

Nope, The Boy won't comment at AtBC unless/until Wes gives the OK. We're hoping for a special forgiveness pass, but Wes hasn't made up his mind yet. We did, after all, really violate the rules by commenting on three separate occasions under JBnCK, so we are still living under our self-imposed ban. It's the honorable thing to do.

UDoJ is still trundling along though. Some new faces and new friends, and we even have a new troll to replace the ever-ridiculous DAJ. I have to say, though, that ConcernedEngineer is much funnier but less offensive than DAJ. They're really two different breeds so it's not a real "apples to apples" comparison.

Funny thing is, though, that our new pet just really doesn't understand the word "fictional". It's on every page of the blog, and we even explicitly laid it out for him, and HE EVEN REPEATED IT BACK TO US, and yet he's still trying to save our souls.

Dumber than a whole box of rocks. Much like AFDave.

Anyways, back on topic...

DAJ, you haven't been banned here, you've been given ample opportunity to present your theory and defend it, and yet all you can muster is the same old whines about being banned and insults to the folks kindly hosting your drivel.

Why not actually present and defend your theory? Win us over.

Explain to us non-scientist dingbats in little words how your theory works.

Personally, I really find that examples work for me. Just light-hearted, silly examples that illustrate what all those big sciency words mean. And if you involve snuffleupagi, all the cuter.

If you'd rather, examples using humor and/or sex also work for all three of us.

I guess it is the best he can do these days, being old,cranky, worthless, and clearly senile.

Pity that he is so deluded and demented that he cannot see that his laughable 'hypothesis' is abig joke, except in the world of the undereducated zealots on ISCID and a handful of creationist websites.